This is an archive of past discussions with User:MSincccc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi dearest editor, While reviewing the pending changes backlog, I saw you reverted edits here that were done in good faith. Reviewing pending changes didn't mean all edits may not be correct and so, critical attention are done before accepting or the other way round. I believe this was a mistake and be careful to avoid edit questioning. Regards! — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page David Cameron, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
On 17 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ivanka Trump, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2017 Ivanka Trump(pictured) became the first Jewish member of a U.S. first family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivanka Trump. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ivanka Trump), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi MSincccc, I would strongly advise you to not refer to your age or any similar information in Wikipedia discussions. On the precautionary side it is personal information not worth spreading, on the practical side I don't think it will help your case in discussions. Feel free to WP:REVDEL this message if you want. Best, CMD (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I didn't disclose my exact age. I simply wanted others to understand that I'm a young user still in school, not in college or a working professional. Thanks for your advice. I'll keep it in mind for the future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey MSincccc, please be careful with the way you reach out to other editors for reviews like you did here. Your repeated calls for the nomination to be supported could be interpreted as canvassing, which can undermine the integrity of consensus-forming discussions like FAC. Please make sure you phrase your invitations neutrally and without influencing editors to leave any particular !vote, should you even choose to solicit participation at all. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69 This is my first time at FAC. Thank you for reaching out. I will act in a neutral manner when making similar requests to editors in the future. By the way, any comments you could leave at the FAC discussion to help improve the quality of the article would be greatly appreciated, as that is my ultimate aim. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote at the FAC that you look forward to my further response. I don't think you want my response there, as I continue to have concerns about the article's prose, the vagueness in the Lead (have none of her public appearances been important enough to mention there?) and agree also have concerns about the sources (while The Telegraph and some of the other newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, not so much with respect to controversial aspects of the Royal Family). IMO, also, unless at least one or two very good book sources exists about a topic, it probably should wait to go to FA). Also, as you did not accept or respond to the substance of either of my examples of the prose issues (which I feel is, throughout the article, not appropriate for an FA article -- passive voice, vagueness, overly idiomatic British phrasing, etc.), I cannot devote the time to do a full review of the prose. I have no desire to stand in your way, and I hope my comments have been helpful. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing Catherine, Princess of Wales, to GA and now moving towards higher quality. Thank you also for inviting me! Your last question there: I have a section quality on my user page, and my noms are - with those of other project members - also on WT:QAI. You'll find right now an opera singer and a Bach cantata. Please don't feel obliged to review in return, only if you are interested ;) - The singer is a very peculiar case: a DYK reviewer didn't like the sources, so added plenty of others. I asked him first to nominate, but when nothing happened felt free to go ahead. GA quality is rather independent of who nominates, right? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Clarityfiend The Telegraph sources are paywalled. You fail to realise that a registered account allows access to only a limited number of articles. As for the other changes that might have been reverted in the process, I will make it a point to reinstate them later before the article is sent for PR. I hope there are no bad feelings. Have a great day ahead. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure? I was blocked from two Telegraph articles, but not the rest. Plus I checked every Telegraph reference; that seems like more than a limited number. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. At times, it's at fault and allows you to access it for free. But most articles can be accessed by only subscribed users. User @Keivan.f: and @Tim O'Doherty: can confirm the same. The former is current collaborating with me for the article's FAC; the latter reviewed it successfully for GA. The rest of your edits have been restored. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If there needs to be a discussion, it has to include the articles of the whole British royal family. For now, these two articles are the only different ones so until a consensus is reached, they should be the same as the rest. Maria0215 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@48JCL Not my fault. It all occurred due to technical glitches on my device. Sorry for the inconvenience. Your edit has been restored. I hope you understand. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
New article for John V Olyer
Hi MSincccc. Nice to meet you. I work for BeiGene, the pharmaceutical company, and I am trying to publish an article for the company's CEO, John Oyler. I noticed your involvement in other BLPs, including those of entrepreneurs and business executives; your help with the draft I put together here would be appreciated. I am grateful for your review and input for inclusion in main space Wikipedia.
Hi can you please respond to my comments on his talk page. I think they are relevant to what would be considered under GAR. Czarking0 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Collaboration
Hi @MSincccc thanks for reaching out. You can help me in joining a “editing operation” at the soon to be created article Draft:Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool where I might need some help in adding new content and information to that page. Your help is greatly needed and appreciated. It is a pleasure to have your support and hand. And also I got Tim’s name because I have known him for a while looking through the revision history of certain historical articles he usually edits. So that’s how I know him and other editors. And also thank you very much again for reaching me and providing the assistance that I need to get through in creating the new article mentioned beforehand. Altonydean (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Catherine
I thought you would welcome that edit. You had previously complained about the addition of the second public appearance, and I said at the time that once we had more context we could add it. Well, now we have more context. She is making "occasional" appearances, and I think the two refs that I offered verify the statement very clearly. I really don't understand what you are doing. You just seem to revert anything that you have not thought through sufficiently. Don't worry, I will never help you with another article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers Not that I was trying to alienate you or that I want to shoo you away but that was just not meant for the article. They go to church in Balmoral every time at this time of the year; it was a private visit with the family and not one in an official capacity. Please feel free to add an engagement from the future when she carries out something in an official capacity (which she is yet to do since her Wimbledon appearance). Furthermore, if you were really looking forward to adding another appearance of hers, why not even add the fact that she appeared in a video along with other public figures and Prince William to congratulate Team GB athletes after the Olympics? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The change that I made DOES NOT ADD another appearance. In fact it *removes* an appearance, and it summarizes and contextualizes all of her appearances since she began cancer treatment, which is what you need in the article, and what readers currently need to know. So either you failed to pay attention to what my change actually did, or you are simply making a knee-jerk reversion of the content. Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. BTW: A video is not the same as a public appearance, as it is made in a controlled environment, unlike a public appearance. You could be sitting on a toilet, vomiting every 5 minutes, and still make a video. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers Your revision does "ADD" an appearance as the Parade article you cited (could have used the Daily Telegraph or other finer sources also, if really important) mentions her visit to Crathie Cirk with other members of the family. Furthermore, the FAC was filled with comments as to cut down on the amount of "She did this, she did that" material and that parts of the article read like "a laundry list". If you could help me with cutting down on unnecessary information and replace sources with higher quality ones (including books) please do. Also you are welcome to put forth your comments at the next peer review. Regards and apologies if I did bother you in any way (but that was never my intention). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. Sorry for having made you feel that way, but again that was never my intention and even on my worst day here I would not have done such a thing to any editor. I am still pretty young and I would appreciate it if the others could collaborate effectively. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for my angry words, and wish only good luck to you in your future endeavors. I have unsubscribed to this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers One last point, please. Will you put forth your suggestions at the article's next Peer Review if you find it convenient to do so? Also please put forth any valuable suggestions if possible. I understand that you made the edit in good faith. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No. My edit was a clear improvement to the article. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you. Please stop pinging me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers I have replaced your source with a higher quality one but it conveys the same information. Let me know of your thoughts on this in your response. Thereafter, I will close this thread. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
"Her next appearance came in July" That is a very poor edit and makes the article demonstrably worse, as she has made multiple appearances since June. My edit would have greatly improved your article. Please do not contact me about this again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
this change by your colleague has finally reinstated my edit, so it is fine now. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. Please do not post to my Talk page again, and I will extend the same courtesy to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned, your revision only added a reference pertaining to her latest appearance. You never made any changes to the corresponding prose nor did you include it in your suggestions. You had ample time to modify the prose according to the reference added. Ssilvers I hope you will agree to the fact that you never suggested any changes for the prose nor did you make any. Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you should accuse me of starting a "sort of drama" ? I never initiated one and I still assume good faith. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers One last comment before I close this discussion. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. No drama on my part, for sure. This situation would not have arisen at all had you at least suggested any changes to the prose. Furthermore, my colleague's edit was never the one you made-since you never mentioned prose tweaks until recently. What do you have to say with regards to this? MSincccc (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers Well, yes you did. My sincere apologies for my careless oversight. I never noticed it. But then you should know I am still in my early teens and the fact that I was in the middle of my sleep when the notification clicked that a revision had been made meant I only looked upto the extent that a not-so reliable source had been used. Would you mind forgiving me? I assure you that a similar occurence would not take place in future. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I forgive you, but, IMO: 1. You should not involve yourself with trying to promote articles to the GA or FA level until you no longer have the urge to edit "in the middle of your sleep" and preferably not until you complete undergraduate work at a university; and 2. If someone challenges a reversion you make, you should look back at the history much, much, much, much, much, much more carefully before insisting that you are right (and then insisting that you are right; and then and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right). Now, will you please, please leave me alone until, say, 2035? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Catherine promotion
Ssilvers I would really appreciate it if you could guide me and continue to make valuable edits so that I can achieve FA status for Catherine's and William's articles. I really want to improve its quality and I assure you that I will not repeat similar behaviour in the future. Looking forward to your response. Hopefully, you will assist me. Regards.
P.S I will not unnecessarily leave messages on your talk page (or any other editors) hereafter. But please allow me to contribute to the quality of articles here. MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no influence on whether you contribute or not, but if I were you, I would work on promoting stubs to starts and starts to C-class before focusing on higher level articles. As for Catherine, as I have said to you before, the prose and content throughout is not FA level, IMO, and when editors tried to give you and your colleague comments at FAC, the two of you (I will refer to you both as "you" below) did not seriously address their comments, but instead "put a bandaid" on the immediate problem instead of elevating the article more broadly. The most hilarious thing that I remember is that we said, you need to cite more books, and you said, Oh, there aren't any books. Then someone posted a list of at least a dozen of them. I also remember telling you that you should go back through the comments, including Tim riley's and address them much more seriously by totally re-thinking the content that led to his comment and seeing if you could expand the most interesting content about Catherine much more broadly. I had also suggested that the Lead section does not adequately summarize all of the sections of the article, and instead of responding usefully, you added a sentence that is a simple list of the topics that had been completely missing. I'm sorry that I cannot say this more kindly: you seem like a very nice young person, but I do not think you are yet capable to doing FA quality work at present, due to your age, experience and educational level (see, e.g. Tim riley's response to you at another FAC today about your rigid understanding of a rigid grammar rule about one-sentence paragraphs -- most grammar rules are not rigid, but are guidelines that should be helpful in most cases). You should not be disappointed by this, but should be patient and, if you continue to be enthusiastic about Wikipedia, the most helpful things for you would be to continue to study English grammar and English literature, research techniques and perhaps library science. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can i get your e-mail? I have written the text of an article and collected the sources (it's a biography article of a female media personality), but I've never created a new article and I'm looking for someone who has experience and would like to. Would you be willing to help? Mlody1312 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
As an old school reviewer, I like to make things easy for nominators & often do much of the work for full GA criteria compliance myself. See this or that example review for how I tend to operate. If you prefer the sort of reviewer who gives you pages worth of bullet points to respond to, let me know in the next couple of days & I'll cancel the review. Thank for all the work you've done improving the article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm just curious to know what benefit you see in having the Wales children and Sussexes short descriptions be "Member of the British royal family", rather than "British prince(ss)" like all other (born royal) family members? short descriptions are meant to be as short as possible, so I don't see any benefit to your version versus all others. estar8806 (talk) ★14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your version of the Sussex children's and the Sussexes' articles short descriptions. Also Charlotte's birth year is mentioned in her article title; hence, it should not be repeated in the short description. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not that strongly opposed to leaving the date out of her short descriptions, but WP:SDDATES does say we should include the date and doesn't mention any exceptions for those with dates already in the title. estar8806 (talk) ★15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Even I am not strongly opposed to that idea. But presentation is also a thing. .
P.S I hope you are satisfied with my recent revisions and that you will help me improve the quality of British royalty articles in future. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
First of all, some of the sources(BBC News, The Guardian, etc.) were linked multiple times which constitutes overlinking. Also, quite a number of them were not linked at all. Thus, as you can see, the linking was inconsistent and it was hence unnecessary. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Take a look at MOS:LINKONCE, which states that "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". If an article had no links at all, and someone added a link to say, San'yō-Onoda, would you revert that change because it ruins the consistency? I think not; articles should have links. Please self revert. ―Panamitsu(talk)04:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
linking the same source used in some of the citations and not doing so for the other citations at the same time.
If an article had no links at all, and someone added a link to say, San'yō-Onoda, would you revert that change because it ruins the consistency? I think not; articles should have links.
As to this comment of yours, I can't see why articles should not have links. I never objected to that.
The point of discussion is sources having blue links and more specifically, all of them having it rather than just a select few.
@Panamitsu Since you were the one to start this conversation, I would like to ensure that we are cleared from both ends and that there exists no ambiguity with regards to the above. Also, hopefully we can collaborate in the future. Do reach out if you need any assistance. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Apologies for the late response -- I have a script that prevents me from using talk pages late in the evening. If you'd like to collaborate, for the past while I've been thinking about creating an article for the 1986 royal tours, specifically the part of New Zealand, where for some reason the Queen got some eggs thrown on her. ―Panamitsu(talk)22:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Princess of Wales military ranks
I've seen that you reverted my edit to the "Catherine, Princess of Wales" voice, as the matter is "Already covered in the article". Very respectfully and in the most friendly terms, it doesn't look entirely so. If I'm not mistaken, her ranks/titles in the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guard, the Fleet Air Arm, and RAF Coningsby have been omitted, as well as the sponsorship of HMS Glasgow, and her title of Honorary Air Commander of the RAF Air Cadets is misquoted as Commodore of Air Command of the Air Training Corps (in the "Honorary titles box") or as "patron of the RAF Cadets" (in the "Military and armed force" paragraph). Actually the only military rank/title that looks correctly given is the Irish Guards colonelcy. Considering that the edit adds relevant information that are missing in the voice, and that the information has been grouped together for ease of consultation in the most concise form, are you sure that the revert is justified? I'm not even remotely willing to start any quarrel of edit war about the matter, just asking you, in the most relaxed and collaborative terms, to reconsider the revert. All the best (and season's geetings!) Arturolorioli (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The following information has been covered in the article List of titles and honours of Catherine, Princess of Wales and hence has been omitted from the main article. It was done upon recommendations from reviewers at FAC to trim down the section. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page as well. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Also the edits you made were to a sub-section under the section "Charity work", which covers her notable charitable endeavours in the concerned areas. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Векочел (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
